From: "E.J. Totty", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>There's no doubt about it - if the Home Office claims to
>comply with the Hague Accords, but then sanctions JSP
>ammo for police which is designed to expand (even if in
>practice it doesn't), then it is in breach. It would be
>much better advised to state that the Hague accords have
>no relevance to police equipment and were never meant to.
>They only apply to warfare.
>
>Nick Steadman
Steve, & Nick,
I have an interesting question - hypothetical as
it is: Knowing the particular laws about using certain
ammunition types, suppose nation 'A' and nation 'B' go
to war -- against each other.
Both are signatories to the Geneva convention on
war.
As country 'A' is overtaken, the police who were
issued ammunition that was banned from the theater of
war, now are required to take an active role in the defence
of their nation, because the clods of country 'B' are engaged
in heinous acts against the citizens, the police make no
distinction between the criminals and the invaders.
Because the police ammunition has caused such a
high fatality rate among the invaders, they withdraw and
subsequently loose the conflict.
Country 'B' sues country 'A' in the world court
for violation of the Geneva convention.
What is the outcome?
ET
Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org
List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___________________________________________________________
T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
